Posted
by
BeauHDon Tuesday January 23, 2018 @08:25PM
from the do-it-yourself dept.

Jason Koebler shares a report from Motherboard: According to a freshly updated map of community-owned networks, more than 750 communities across the United States have embraced operating their own broadband network, are served by local rural electric cooperatives, or have made at least some portion of a local fiber network publicly available. The map was created by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that advocates for local economies. The Institute's latest update indicates that there's now 55 municipal networks serving 108 communities with a publicly owned fiber-to-the-home internet network. 76 communities now offer access to a locally owned cable network reaching most or all of the community, and more than 258 communities are now served by a rural electric cooperative. Many more communities could expand their local offerings according to the group's data. 197 communities already have some publicly owned fiber service available to parts of the community, while more than 120 communities have publicly-owned dark (unused) fiber available for use by local residences and local area businesses. The group's map also highlights which states have erected legislative barriers to hamper these local efforts and explains what these laws actually do.

The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.

Instead of just using labels like "communist" and "capitalist", you should learn about evidence based reasoning. Look at the actual results. For most things, capitalism works better. For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.

For Internet service, people tend to be happier with municipal systems rather than private monopolies. So maybe that is a better way to go. What is important is the results.

For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.

You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?

Example: in June, I had some nasty issue in the foot (some acute tendon swelling -- can't read the doctor's handwriting), it made walking so painful I had trouble going 100 meters to a shop. After a long time of waiting, I finally got admitted by a first-contact doctor, only whom could give me a referral to the actual doctor with an ability to heal me. For fucking February! So instead of using the system I fully paid for with my taxes, I went to a

No one is claiming _all_ government run health care is better than private, nor that it's flawless. If you'd like to take the example of the collapsed health system that you've had problems with and show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less", I'd be interested.

I'd be even more interested if you could show that the failure of the healthcare system was because it was run by _a_ government, rather than being the result of being run by a government that was failing in other ways.

In informal settings it's not unusual to reference relatively uncontested positions without providing evidence each time.

That the US has poorer outcomes per person per dollar is well known. Most other OECD countries have similar health outcomes for similar per person expenditure and have similar levels of government involvement in healthcare. Comparing the US to these countries supports the hypothesis that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less".

To the extent that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is accepted as true, then asking that an example that is offered that contradicts this be elaborated _is_ how evidence works.

If you don't consider that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is true or well supported, would you please say so so we can have a discussion around that. Picking points on form doesn't really add anything, here.

For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.

You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?

Example: in June, I had some nasty issue in the foot (some acute tendon swelling -- can't read the doctor's handwriting), it made walking so painful I had trouble going 100 meters to a shop. After a long time of waiting, I finally got admitted by a first-contact doctor, only whom could give me a referral to the actual doctor with an ability to heal me. For fucking February! So instead of using the system I fully paid for with my taxes, I went to a commercial doctor instead. The problem was fixed after just a few days of physical therapy. In the public system, waiting times for physical therapy are 18-24 months. Same for most specializations, including those life-saving like cardio (24 months).

But that was the "good old times". Since then, the health system pretty much collapsed. Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.

For politicians, the health system is only a cost; the money can be better spent for something with a bigger chance of getting them votes or power. Thus, those of us who can afford a doctor have to pay twice, while the poor get fucked just the same.

This times ten.

It's a dirty little secret that people in America keep getting lied to about. Everyone here who has even a halfway decent job gets private health insurance for themselves and their families.

I assume you're referring to the British NHS. It's still better than the U.S. where your scenario would have the same result if you have reasonable health insurance. If you don't you'd be out thousands of dollars.
At any rate, a better solution is what's going on in Germany and France.

Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.

Well there's your problem right there; all of your doctors are homeless and starving to death. No wonder there is such a shortage.

For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.

You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?

Not sure about the GP but what is obvious is you haven't.

Nice story, but in reality as a foreigner you are not permitted access to free medical services anywhere unless your nation has a reciprocal agreement.

Secondly, sounds like you were travelling without insurance in a foreign country and expecting the locals to pick up the tab. Entitlement much.
For all the flaws with the UK's NHS has, I much prefer it over the US's private system. First and foremost, it's cheaper. The UK pays between US$4-5000 o

ShanghaiBill makes an important point: there are some things the free-market does better, and there are some things that the government does better. People often forget that the public enables the private. Government built infrastructure keeps the economy going. Roads, utilities, and the banking system allow commerce to happen generally smoothly.

When it comes to health care, the government run systems of every other developed country provide better results at much lower cost than what we get in the U.S.

One final point. I do think this thread should be referring to communism. Instead, I think they mean socialism. Even then, you can have government run systems that do not use socialism. For example, England's single-payer health-care system is socialistic while Canada's single-payer system is not. Both get better results than the U.S. at much lower cost.

This isn't about free market, or communism, or capitalism at all. It's about communities using their own resources for infrastructure and what *should be* a common utility. If things ran they way they should, the easements, right-of-ways, the utility poles, should be owned by the municipal governments and leased to those that can show they can sustain the rent, not damage other people's stuff, and be relied on when there's damage from storms, etc.

There are easements granted and right-of-ways that I as a property owner granted to utilities. Sadly, this was done by prior owners, who benefited from the fees. But then one of the utilities changed the nature of the easement, and low and behold, I could charge them once again.

Municipalities should control their infrastructure, not some lawyer for Verizon, AT&T, etc etc. This has zero to do with communism. It has to do with the most important common denominator for most people: community, not some hackneyed description of an obtuse financial model or governmental construct.

Health care and the police are in many ways the last line of defense. They are both expensive and not very efficient. If you have to use them chances are you did some wrong elsewhere. Good exerciser, walk-able cities, good nutrition and not smoking or drinking are far more effective at increasing life expectancy and decreasing infant mortality than the last 40% of the money we spend on health care*. Likewise, good education, social support, job opportunities and safe neighbourhoods are far more effectiv

It isn't just infrastructure, industry "agreements" not to do X rarely work because the companies involved have a vested interest in cheating. Hence, we need a government agency to ride shotgun. Los Angeles smog during the 60's and 70's is a prime example, as are superfund cleanup sites and going after companies for the damage they caused. That doesn't mitigate the damage they did to people, but it's a start.

Anyone want to trust the airlines and not the FAA? Trusting the airlines means treating them like in

Communism and socialism work great -- ON PAPER. You mix actual humans into it? It becomes a shit-show of corruption.
Capitalism isn't much better, really. Ideally, everyone plays above-board, observes the Social Contract (i.e., doesn't intentionally fuck everyone over just for sake of profit), and society prospers. Unfortunately, much like the microbiome in your gut, things only work really work well when they stay in balance.
Sadly, capitalism here in these United States is grossly out of balance. Corporatism is a real Thing, they have too much power and sway in everything, especially our government (which should be above and immune to such things), and to make matters even worse we now have a sitting President (such as he is, LOL) that's working like the damned to take away what little control there still is over them.
How this pertains to the Internet, is Ajit Pai and his bald-faced pandering to corporate interests, and the American public be damned. Thus we have more and more municipalities looking to do an end-run around shitty corporations like Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T.
Fact of the matter is, the Internet is now too important and integrated into everything to call a 'boutique' or 'luxury' service; it must, sooner (preferable) or later, be deemed a public utility, with all that implies.

LOL if you asked the entire legion of users in this place that hate me they'd tell you a different story, one filled with me being an idiot, tinfoil-hat-wearer, dangerously paranoid, or some combination of all the above. Just because I'm not a bobble-headed yes-man who agrees with the 'group think'.

But it's not about calling it a boutique or luxury service. It's about calling an ISP a telecommunications service provider or an information service provider and when you decide which one it is can determine whether the FCC can regulate ISPs under Title 2.

Part of the problem was that different ISPs were classified differently and had different rules apply to them. If you want to call it a public utility fine but shouldn't you make the rules consistent at the very least?

The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.

The Internet you know owes way more to private development than to the government. Sure, the government was involved in the beginning, but don't give them too much credit—ARPANET was smaller than many modern company intranets and only linked a handful of military and educational institutions, with no expectation of expanding to serve the general public. It was the private commercial interests that developed it into a global telecommunications system benefitting billions of people every day.

I took the time, to think it all through: A perfect communism, for example, would be the exact same market as healthy capitalist "free market". And a perfect capitalist market, would automatically be social thanks to the advantages of networking / teaming up / helping each other out. (Basically, if you help failing parts of your group over not too big valleys, you have made an investment and enjoy the benefits when they're on a mountain. And vice versa.)

What I find interesting is that so many people see that as some ort [sic] of socialism, but so few people see municipal roads as such.

As you say, there is little difference. They are both fine when done privately, respecting people's rights, as in a community co-op, and wrong when they depend on force. The average municipality is close enough to a co-op anyway that if we just said "that's enough, we're not going to allow anyone to get away with using force anymore, no exceptions" they could reorganize as co-ops (with rent and voluntarily accepted terms of service instead of property taxes and ordinances) and carry on almost as they did be

...have always been a lot more socialist than they'd like to admit. Once you remove the labels and just ask about principles and policies directly, most Americans exhibit quite strong socialist tendencies. This is one of many reasons why worker-owned and community-based businesses, which are inherently democratic, have always been popular and are getting more so as the government increasingly fails to protect its citizens from predatory corporations.

As always, socialist ideas sound good to people who haven't lived under them. The problem is always the actual implementation - once the repression and arrests start, people deeply regret choosing socialism. Just ask Venezuela if you need a modern example, and history provides many more.

As always, socialist ideas sound good to people who haven't lived under them. The problem is always the actual implementation - once the repression and arrests start, people deeply regret choosing socialism. Just ask Venezuela if you need a modern example, and history provides many more.

As always, monopolies sound good to people who haven't had to do business with them. The problem is always the actual implementation - once they start charging you whatever-the-fuck they want for unusually shitty service, be

Yes, those poor Germans, Swedes, Finns, Danish, Norwegians, Dutch, etc. living under oppressive regimes, with high crime, poverty, terrible healthcare, and under-performing education. Oh, and what about their slow, expensive telecoms and internet services? How on earth do they bear it?

They're not socialist. Duh. The government doesn't own the means of production. They're market economies. Why do you think they're doing so well? Plus, they don't have to pay the crippling cost of their own defense. They have suckers to do it for them. And they repay this amazing free defense with protests that the Americans doing the defense are warmongering racists who need to get out of their countries. What ungrateful jerks.

I don't know much about community internet networks, but I notice that Q-Life where I live in The Dalles is listed. The touted success story is likely mostly true with Q-Life being important in bringing the Google data centers here, but the Internet service available here is about as bad and expensive as anywhere.

My town has a municipal ISP, run by our municipal power company. Our power rates are lower than the neighboring towns, which are served by commercial operators who have been asking for double-digit percent increases in power rates every year. In contrast, our power company gave everyone in town $20 off a bill last year because they had too much money in their operating fund. The service people live in town, and are very responsive to outages, we often have power back before other towns served by commercial